Partly allowed

T.S.Raveendran v. v.C.Unnikrishnan

Kerala HC18 Jan 2008Crl.MC/92/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the interim order in a Section 138 NI Act cheque dishonour case. Instead of requiring the petitioner to deposit one-fourth of the Rs. 8 lakhs cheque amount as a condition for sentence suspension, the Court reduced the requirement to Rs. 1 lakh, noting it is too early to claim the underlying claim is false.

What did the court decide?

Condition of depositing 1/4th of Rs. 8 lakhs cheque amount modified to mandatory deposit of Rs. 1 lakh within one month.

T.S.Raveendran Vs v.C.Unnikrishnan — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 92 of 2008()

¶6

¶7

CRL. M.P. NO. 4350/2007 IN CRL. A. NO. 636/2007 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD.

¶8

PETITIONER: PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

¶9

¶10

T.S.RAVEENDRAN, S/O.SUKUMARAN, KRISHNAKRIPA, VIDYUTH NAGAR, PARAKUNNAM, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.

¶12

SRI. LIJU M.P.

¶13

RESPONDENTS: 1ST RESPONDENT AND 2ND RESPONDENT:

¶14

¶15

V.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.CHATHU NAIR, ARUNIMA, ADITYA NAGAR, EAST VENNAKKARA, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD.

¶16

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI. NOBLE MATHEW, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

V. RAMKUMAR , J.

¶20

================================= CRL.M.C. No. 92 of 2008

¶21

================================

¶22

Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2008.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner, who is the accused in S.T. No. 347/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Palakkad for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of a cheque for a sum of Rs.8 lakhs, challenges Annexure D interim order dated 06.12.2007 passed by the II Addl. Sessions Court, Palakkad directing him to deposit ¼ of the cheque amount while suspending the sentence under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C.

¶25

It is too early to accept the contention of the petitioner that the claim made by the complainant is false particularly when the trial court has upheld the contention of the complainant. In as much as the cheque amount is comparatively larger amount of Rs.8 lakhs, I am inclined to reduce the amount for deposit. Accordingly, the condition in the impugned order that the petitioner shall deposit ¼^th of the cheque amount shall stand modified obliging him to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lakh within one month from today as a condition for suspending the sentence. In case the petitioner does not deposit the amount within one month from today, it shall be open to the trial court to proceed to execute the sentence.

¶26

This Crl. M.C is disposed of as above.

¶27

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶28

T.S.Raveendran v. v.C.Unnikrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.S.Raveendran v. v.C.Unnikrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wilfred Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Kabeer Vs State

Manoj Vs State

M/S.Sreeram Transport Finance Company Lt Vs M.a.Muhammed Shameem

Prakasan.M.P. Vs State of Kerala